Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen and Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I shall be brief because we have had some very full and powerful speeches from people who are intimately involved and who have specialist knowledge in this field. Like others, as I am sure my noble friends will go on to say, I would prefer not to see this clause in the Bill at all. I very much support the whole range of amendments that have been tabled.

However, I want to add my particular support to Amendment 75A. This is something that many of us referred to at Second Reading. It is the amendment that, leaving aside the issue of the disabled person, most protects the position of the other partner in the relationship, and it is therefore consistent with universal credit. In my view, it is the amendment that, if the Minister seeks to retain consistency with universal credit, he will do his best to support. Basically, we are again running the sort of arguments that we were having over second incomes and disregards, where the question was, “What is the return to work?”, and the Minister told us that he could not afford to run a disregard, even though the costs of childcare might eat up the earnings.

Here, we have the same problem in an even more aggravated form because here, above all, we need if we possibly can to keep the working partner attached to the labour market. We know that if somebody needs to care for more than about 20 hours a week, they probably cannot combine that with anything other than a part-time job. The ingenuity of the Lib Dem amendment is that it allows for something like 24 hours a week at minimum wage or thereabouts, which is pretty much at the tipping point where somebody leaves a full-time labour market and can manage only part-time work in order to make a generous and graceful contribution to caring responsibilities.

If the Minister cannot accept the push of this amendment—I will not say “understand” because I know that he understands it perfectly well—he will be saying to a woman in this position, who may be the working partner: “We are going to make it so unattractive for you to stay in the labour market and work that you, who may very well be tired because of your caring responsibilities, may have financial pressures and may yourself have minor complaints, will want to come out”. It would be infinitely better for her poverty, her health, her connections to the labour market, her sense of self-esteem and her social gregariousness to have a wider life that we should do our absolute damnedest to support her in the labour market—even if on only a part-time basis—and ensure that she kept that money. That is not a huge sum but it would lift her, as a parent, out of poverty and keep her in the labour market. If her partner’s condition deteriorated, we might be very glad that she had that earnings capacity behind her. If he died, we should be very glad that she had remained attached to the labour market and could, after a period of grieving, re-enter it. If he got well, and we would expect to attach conditionality to her, we would be very glad that she had remained attached to the labour market. On all possible outcomes of their partnership, it is in our public interest—the Government’s included—that we keep her attached to the labour market.

I feel very strongly that we have real problems with couples’ earnings. We have seen that before in amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Lister. Here, it seems even more damaging if we go down the parsimonious route of trying to peel off every pound that the woman earns against the partner’s benefit income. I hope very much not only that the Minister will take this away and think about it but, if he is unable to move, that the Lib Dems, who have come up with a decent and ingenious amendment addressing a very real problem—though it is not sufficient to deal with all the problems that disabled people face on the ESA, which need other amendments—will not retreat from the courage of their convictions and will pursue this through.

[Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen]

My Lords, perhaps I may explain why I am briefly entering the Bill at this stage. I did not speak at Second Reading and was not planning to speak in the debates but I have chosen to speak today because I received a letter from an old school friend. He went to school with me when I attended Caistor Grammar School in Lincolnshire many years ago. This friend knows a lot about disability because he is himself disabled. In mid-life, he went into hospital to have what was expected to be a very straightforward operation but unfortunately came out having lost his sight. When Derek wrote to me, I took his letter very seriously and I wish to speak briefly on his behalf today.

My friend is very worried indeed about Clause 51, particularly about the one-year time-limit on contributory ESA, which we have heard a lot about this afternoon, and the replacement of the working-age disability living allowance. With regard to the limit on contributory ESA, he points out that it takes no account of the often very complex issues that disabled people need to address in preparing for and finding work. I understand that the Government have estimated that 94 per cent of those on ESA and in the work-related activity group would take over a year to find work. That would mean that by 2015-16 700,000 people would be affected and 280,000 could have lost their entire benefit payment. The new criteria focus on a much narrower range of support than DLA and appear to fail to recognise the barriers that prevent blind and partially sighted people being able to participate fully in society.

The Disability Benefits Consortium, which is a national coalition of more than 50 disability and welfare charities and other organisations committed to working towards a fair benefits system, also wishes to see Clause 51 removed from the Bill to ensure that disabled people continue to receive the critical financial support that they so deserve. The Disability Benefits Consortium included in its briefing a moving statement from a woman who has Parkinson’s disease. She says:

“I’ve worked all my life and paid for decades into the system on the understanding that there’ll be support if I need it. To be told that all of this support could have an arbitrary time limit is both unfair and stressful”.

I agree. Clause 51 is very flawed and this would be a better Bill if it were removed.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen and Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I think that the principals are here, so can we return to the Bill? Does the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, wish to continue?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

No, I suggest that the Minister responds.